Cleric changes explained (Podcast)

[Chzbro]

You should also really look at the Sentinel again if you doubt their effectiveness, their support capabilities are pretty huge.

I don't doubt their effectiveness; that was kind of my point. I have played or played in a group with ardents, e-druids, artificers, runepriests, bards, warlords, and clerics. They all did their jobs and did them well. If the artificer with no support can be an effective leader (not the best, but effective), then the cleric post errata certainly can be as well.

I am not and never have argued that all the changes are awesome. They are not all necessarily the changes I would have made. But the changes don't make the class brokenly bad or unplayable.

 

[Tony Vargas]

1. The warlord can do more damage at-will by granting an ally a basic attack than the cleric can do with any of the encounter powers that were nerfed.

Not to multiple enemies, he can't.

The nerf to AE sizes were worse than those to damage, IMHO. The rationale that 'tables don't get bigger' is disengenuous. They might not plan to put bigger maps in thier Epic-level adventures but there are some big battle mats on the market, you can always lay two of them side-by-side, very high level adventures tend to go 3D, /and/ monsters do get bigger, enough space for several huge or gargantuan enemies is going to leave a close burst 2 looking pretty anemic. (Not that 'the radiant wrath of my Lord doesn't exceed the reach of a lowly pike,' is exactly robust and impressive at anly level)

Besides, if a "close burst 8 is everything in the combat" why do bows and crossbows have ranges /at all/, since there will /never/ be a 20-square wide combat in D&D at any level?

Similarly, to make the Clerics AEs more leadery and less controllery, it'd've made sense to keep them enemy-targetting, and give them (as many cleric powers already have) benefit allies in the area, as well.

In summary on AEs:

Damage nerf: OK.

Area nerf: excessive.

Targeting nerf: actually less supportive of the Leader role.

No compensating leader function to compensate for the nerfing: Priceless.

2. The warlord and shaman and bard, "heal" better than the cleric by making sure the enemies are dead faster.

True, in general, with a group that has good 'fire discipline.' Some leaders do get to be the captain of Seal Team Six, but others are stuck playing cat-herder. There are times when big fat healing will save a party's collective butt. It's not the most fun and interesting thing to do, though, and it's decidedly a secondary thing in the action economy - the Cleric needs something to do as well as pop off healing words. The STR cleric got some toys to play with, the WIS Cleric, though, has had the batteries taken out of some of his more intereting toys.

 

[Marshall]

Not to multiple enemies, he can't.

Depends on who he's giving the free attack to...

The nerf to AE sizes were worse than those to damage, IMHO. The rationale that 'tables don't get bigger' is disingenuous.

No, Its just plain WRONG. Statements like this make me believe that WotCs offices have meeting rooms the size of a small broom closet with a card table a couple of chairs and some overturned buckets for seats.

They might not plan to put bigger maps in thier Epic-level adventures but there are some big battle mats on the market, you can always lay two of them side-by-side, very high level adventures tend to go 3D, /and/ monsters do get bigger, enough space for several huge or gargantuan enemies is going to leave a close burst 2 looking pretty anemic. (Not that 'the radiant wrath of my Lord doesn't exceed the reach of a lowly pike,' is exactly robust and impressive at anly level)

Thats true at every tier, It doesnt take much for a couple large critters to force an increase in map size.

Besides, if a "close burst 8 is everything in the combat" why do bows and crossbows have ranges /at all/, since there will /never/ be a 20-square wide combat in D&D at any level?

...and the only way for CBu8 to cover the battlefield is for the cleric to be standing in the exact middle of it, which means he's probably surrounded or took a lot of risk to get there.
That being said CBu8 is HUGE! TU should have stopped at CBu5.

Similarly, to make the Clerics AEs more leadery and less controllery, it'd've made sense to keep them enemy-targetting, and give them (as many cleric powers already have) benefit allies in the area, as well.

In summary on AEs:

Damage nerf: OK.

Area nerf: excessive.

Targeting nerf: actually less supportive of the Leader role.

No compensating leader function to compensate for the nerfing: Priceless.

Exactly, They took away the leader functions of these powers and made them low-middle pure control powers. Like most of what they've done in the last year...they accomplished exactly the opposite of their stated intent.

 

[IanB]

All the cleric players out there might as well retrain their PC's to warpriests or warlords now. Way to nerf a core class into oblivion WotC. Your massive rules updates really need to be reined in.

Hyperbole much? I had my first session with my now-level-23 laser cleric, who had several of the nerfed abilities from this pass (firestorm, all the radiant servant powers, etc). I was still plenty effective. The changes to firestorm probably hurt the most (it was pretty blatantly overpowered before frankly but 4 separate nerfs is about 1.5 too many probably), but by no means is the class anywhere *approaching* oblivion.

 

[ppaladin123]

Hyperbole much? I had my first session with my now-level-23 laser cleric, who had several of the nerfed abilities from this pass (firestorm, all the radiant servant powers, etc). I was still plenty effective. The changes to firestorm probably hurt the most (it was pretty blatantly overpowered before frankly but 4 separate nerfs is about 1.5 too many probably), but by no means is the class anywhere *approaching* oblivion.

I agree that the "nerfs" really didn't change much so in that sense I disagree with all the hemming and hawing about oblivion. On the other hand, the cleric was already a lot more limited in what it can do (buffing, granting attacks, positioning) than other leaders so the errata are puzzling. They took away some of the power of a class that already needs some love in every category other than healing ability and they didn't address any of the underlying problems with the class. I'm hoping that in a future update they will bring some of crummier powers up in strength by attaching leader-esque riders. Some people took this errata as, "sorry, we don't want clerics to do anything well but heal," and that was somewhat maddening given Mearls recent column about how leaders should be able to do more than heal.

 

[Aegeri]

Not to multiple enemies, he can't.

To be frank, if at epic tier you're fighting an Astral Kraken or a Balor, multiple enemies is irrelevant because those targets are so important you *need* them dead *now*. Not later, *now* because the more time you give them the more damage you're going to suffer (terrible terrible damage to borrow a starcraft term). If you have a Barbarian in your party with Hurricane of Blades vs. an Astral Kraken, *one* mistake you can have a dead character. Same with the Balor, one mistake and you can have a good chunk of the party eating dirt.

Of course if you have a really big blast and can use a couple of them in a turn, plus have some control effect on the side you are definitely doing your job. But ultimately, the guy who can get the thief to tear down a monster a round (or even two rounds) earlier is going to have the best time. Because every creature at epic is so dangerous, you want to remove them as fast as possible (because they can ramp up damage just as quickly!).

The Warlord is an exceptional leader because he makes important nasty monsters like those dead *the fastest*, while also ensuring the party can't take as much damage from them. For example, he also ensures that the party goes first as well, so getting caught by bursts/blasts is much more difficult (as you can spread out). Shamans can waste entire attacks, because the spirit cannot be targeted by AoE powers. The Ardent has plenty of effective bursts/blasts, plus very deep healing reserves if he carries energizing strike into epic tier. The Bard is actually a really solid enabler and gets plenty of dominate/control effects. An epic sentinel brings an amazing amount to the table if built for summons.

The Cleric before had huge controller bursts and had the best overall individual healing. But healing does not make a leader anymore, because as many people will say - MM3 damage easily cuts your healing. So you need to do something other than heal to be an effective leader. What is that for the cleric? I don't really see them having a great amount of enabling and they don't have a great amount of control either (single target control easily goes to the bard). They don't bring the great druid controller summons to the party like the sentinel does. They don't have the ardents individual bursts/blasts or features. They can't enable like a warlord.

All of the above can heal and heal effectively. The Cleric brings more healing yes, but they aren't bringing anything else. That's a problem and if wizards felt they were overdone on the controller that is fine. So I have no problem with them nerfing the bursts, IF they fixed many of the useless standard action utilities and gave something back leader wise. If Astral Storm was area burst 2 and gave a solid leader effect, sure, I could buy that. As it is they just nerfed the power into oblivion, while not even fixing the rubbish powers nobody took anyway.

For an example, I may have made Astral Storm give a area burst 2 within 20; allies within the burst gain resist 10-15 to all the damage keywords of this spell while within the zone. That would be very good against epic tier demons and elementals (who often have various types of elemental damage). Enemies would have gained vulnerability to the same damage types. Alternatively, I would have made it bolster allies by maybe giving a +2 bonus to attack rolls or anything like that. Basically I would have said "Okay, the burst is excessive but let's make it a GREAT leader power instead".

Now it's just a mediocre power nobody will take, while not fixing any of the actual problems the cleric has. It can't be because things are overpowered, because there is a huge gulf in effectiveness between the cleric and warlord. Yet the Warlord didn't get touched except some clarifications. It makes me wonder what on earth Wizards is thinking lately.

 

[IanB]

It can't be because things are overpowered, because there is a huge gulf in effectiveness between the cleric and warlord. Yet the Warlord didn't get touched except some clarifications. It makes me wonder what on earth Wizards is thinking lately.

You have to make that case using only the original PH powers of the warlord, though, since that's explicitly what they're working over right now. It seems to me that a great many of the powers that make the warlord effective are in MP1/2.

 

[Aegeri]

You have to make that case using only the original PH powers of the warlord

That's exactly what I am thinking though, because the Warlord as written in the PHB is one of the strongest leaders in the game. If you honestly think you needed MP1/2 to make the warlord good, you never saw a mostly PHB Warlord using the likes of Relentless Assault (which was nerfed). Not to mention even nerfed, Relentless Assault blows ANYTHING a epic cleric has out of the water and right to the top of Mt Everest. Then you have Lead the Attack or "Bring the alpha strike to the party" enabler. Again, even nerfed it's *still* one of the best powers a Warlord has.

It seems to me that a great many of the powers that make the warlord effective are in MP1/2.

This would be wrong, it is far more accurate to say they just get more great options on top of already delicious and great options. This would be true of the Cleric, who gets a lot out of divine power and the newer books.

PHB Warlords have: Tactical Presence (Bonus to attacks when spend AP - brilliant enabler), a bonus to initiative, Lead the Attack, Commander's Strike, Battle Captain Paragon Path - particularly with Bolt of Genius (Regain an encounter attack power like Brutal Barrage or Rain of Blows? Why thank you Mr. Warlord), oh and look at the level 16 feature too BTW -, Defy Death - I would LOVE it if you compared this to the Clerics Godstrike. Go ahead, I dare you. - Stand Invincible, Incite Heroism, Relentless Assault and I could go on.

Warlords were amazing out of the PHB. They are still amazing. The Cleric wasn't anywhere near the Warlord in the PHB, even with the huge bursts. It was more obviously powerful, but when people began to figure out the system it became clear just how strong enabling was compared to outright healing.

But again, I ask you to compare Defy Death with the Strength Clerics Godstrike. Is one of these powers broken or is the other one just plain garbage and should be buffed?

Edit: Checking Char-Op, many of the warlords best powers (rated highest) all come from the PHB. But you know, that's exactly what I would expect.

Edit2: Yep, nearly every level PHB warlords have powers that are perfectly competitive with those of MP1/MP2. Well and truly disproving this point.

Edit3: How oh how did I forget one of the best powers in the game? Hail of Steel. Also right out of the PHB.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

The Warlord is an exceptional leader because he makes important nasty monsters like those dead *the fastest*, while also ensuring the party can't take as much damage from them. For example, he also ensures that the party goes first as well, so getting caught by bursts/blasts is much more difficult (as you can spread out). Shamans can waste entire attacks, because the spirit cannot be targeted by AoE powers. The Ardent has plenty of effective bursts/blasts, plus very deep healing reserves if he carries energizing strike into epic tier. The Bard is actually a really solid enabler and gets plenty of dominate/control effects. An epic sentinel brings an amazing amount to the table if built for summons.

Don't forget that the Warlord can also grant extra goodies on top of your own when using Action Points.

 

[Mapache]

It's telling that a lot of the complaints point out that clerics can't do as much damage as other leaders; why is that an issue? If you're upset about the changes because you want to do the most damage to the most creatures, perhaps leader isn't the role for you in the first place.

It's an issue because, at the end of the day, damage wins fights, and there's basically no limit to the benefit a party gets from dealing more damage (until you're consistently one-shotting at least any normal monsters). The cleric isn't mediocre because he personally deals less damage; the cleric is mediocre because the long-term damage of a party with him is notably lower than a party with a tactical leader like a warlord or shaman. More healing just drags out the fights longer versus killing the monsters before they can deal the damage in the first place. The nuclear option of party composition is a bunch of strikers and a few tactical leaders (or, combine them into a crowd of hybrid striker-leaders).